I was surprised that the editorial ``Budget Battle Ahead,'' March 7, was essentially in support of the balanced-budget amendment. It seemed obvious to me that the Republican majority hadn't the slightest interest in balancing the budget.
One only has to look back to Reaganomics to realize that.
What is at stake here is an entirely different agenda, one that would set the stage for a conservative reengineering of society.
This was not about balanced budgets, it was about power and disenfranchisement in a new social order. Jay Putt, Setauket, N.Y. Don't tinker with the Constitution
I disagree with the editorial ``The 67th Senator,'' Feb. 28.
The Constitution need not be burdened with economics. If passed, an amendment about the budget might lead to courts' jurisdictions over funds. The balance of power might be at stake.
Furthermore, ways to balance the budget have not been spelled out. Fluctuations of the economy and possible military emergencies haven't been actively considered.
There are too many risks involved in this reactionary tinkering with the Constitution. Pan Smith, West Newbury, Mass.